What's new

Through No Fault Of Their Own!

Lincoln Highway said:
They harmed the Tax Payer for a projected $94,000,000,000 dollars. They harmed future Teamster retirees for not insisting on single employer pension funding standards. They harmed future Teamster retirees for not securing single employer pension fund insurance. Butch Lewis was supposed to fix the past. Teamster retirees most certainly are not their brothers keepers.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about your worry regarding the "Tax Payer" and wondered what was the U.S. national debt during the Presidential term of Franklin D. Roosevelt. How the "Tax Payer" thought of his debt planning seeing as he is the only President elected for 3 consecutive terms. And Google says.......

1933 - The U.S. debt reached $22 billion. 1939 - World War II was beginning in Europe. 1941 - The United States enters into World War II. 1945 - By the end of World War II the Government's debt had grown to more than $258 billion.......

Think about that. The national debt went from $22 billion when FDR was elected to $258 billion when he died. And the "Tax Payer" elected him to a 3rd term as president.......

In your opinion, was the "Tax Payer" harmed? Did the United States collapse? Is the average citizen better off in 2021 than the average citizen in 1933? Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
 
Steward of the Rock said:
The government is the ones that set the rules for how the pensions operate that the funds must follow. The government is also the ones that deregulated freight back in 1980 that was the start of this whole mess. So, the government has had plenty of time to help figure out a way to prevent this bail out that was eventually needed to restore the underfunded pensions. The various funds in a lot of cases did make some poor investment decisions, but with the deregulation and then the government oversight of the various MEPF, government bares as much blame if not more than the funds do. Around 1998, I remember that the Central States Pension Fund was very well funded. If I remember correctly, it was funded at over 90%. The fund decided to do higher payouts to get this number below the 90% to avoid additional taxes and the government did not object. The fund also changed the rules by adding the 25 and out at any age to help get the funding under the 90% mark for tax purposes and the government did not object. As the fund (Central States) was under government oversight and had to follow the governments rules, why did they not object to these changes to keep the fund well funded?
Click to expand...
That's not the question, the question is who guaranteed the pensions, not who screwed up.
 
Dracula said:
That's not the question, the question is who guaranteed the pensions, not who screwed up.
Click to expand...
I don’t recall ever saying anyone guaranteed the pension. I do recall saying that that we earned it and have a right to it as the money was paid on our behalf per the collective bargaining agreement between the companies and the Teamsters. Does that necessarily mean that we will get that money? No it does not. No different than a person buying a car, agreeing to a payment per contract, and then defaulting thru bankruptcy. The car company still has a right to the money. But will they get it? Probably not. So now that I have answered your question, is there a point you would like to make?
 
Steward of the Rock said:
I don’t recall ever saying anyone guaranteed the pension. I do recall saying that that we earned it and have a right to it as the money was paid on our behalf per the collective bargaining agreement between the companies and the Teamsters. Does that necessarily mean that we will get that money? No it does not. No different than a person buying a car, agreeing to a payment per contract, and then defaulting thru bankruptcy. The car company still has a right to the money. But will they get it? Probably not. So now that I have answered your question, is there a point you would like to make?
Click to expand...
Yeah, you guys want the government, to make your pensions and pension payouts whole, by giving billions, in tax payer money, to failing pension funds, that are not required to pay it back. Since you agree, that nobody guaranteed the pension money, then why are the teamsters hellbent on demanding the government use tax dollars to pay your full pensions?
The car company didn't get its money why should the teamsters get their pensions when the pension plan goes bankrupt?
 
Dracula said:
Yeah, you guys want the government, to make your pensions and pension payouts whole, by giving billions, in tax payer money, to failing pension funds, that are not required to pay it back. Since you agree, that nobody guaranteed the pension money, then why are the teamsters hellbent on demanding the government use tax dollars to pay your full pensions?
The car company didn't get its money why should the teamsters get their pensions when the pension plan goes bankrupt?
Click to expand...
As I stated before. The government got involved by deregulating the freight industry and with the government oversight. Since the government got involved, they should have been looking for ways to help rather than letting hundreds of freight companies wither on the vine and go out of business. Your complaint should be directed at the government, not the Teamsters.
 
Dracula said:
Yeah, you guys want the government, to make your pensions and pension payouts whole, by giving billions, in tax payer money, to failing pension funds, that are not required to pay it back. Since you agree, that nobody guaranteed the pension money, then why are the teamsters hellbent on demanding the government use tax dollars to pay your full pensions?
The car company didn't get its money why should the teamsters get their pensions when the pension plan goes bankrupt?
Click to expand...
If I might ask a question ....... what do you consider the role of government in America?

The federal government made laws to limit and curtail where CSPF could invest it's money during the Jimmy Hoffa presidency. Those laws caused a cascading detrimental effect to CSPF financial returns. What should have been done, if anything, to rectify the damage?

The federal government was rewarded by limiting money to individuals and organizations the government didn't approve of (Feds got what they wanted). Why should we be punished for governmental interference? Again, what is the role of government in American?
 
Homesick said:
If I might ask a question ....... what do you consider the role of government in America?

The federal government made laws to limit and curtail where CSPF could invest it's money during the Jimmy Hoffa presidency. Those laws caused a cascading detrimental effect to CSPF financial returns. What should have been done, if anything, to rectify the damage?

The federal government was rewarded by limiting money to individuals and organizations the government didn't approve of (Feds got what they wanted). Why should we be punished for governmental interference? Again, what is the role of government in American?
Click to expand...
Not exactly true. it was a "consent decree". Consent meaning an agreement made by the fund trustees and union officials
to avoid federal prosecution. An agreement that limited the ability of fund trustees and IBT officials from stealing our retirement money. No longer could money be "invested" in casinos and shadow companies that took the cash and then went bankrupt. The result was that money could only be invested in low risk, low reward vehicles like bonds. Had the unions actually looked out for the member's best interest, the government would not have intervened, the money could have been put into Index Funds that have averaged 8% returns since the great depression and our retirement would be safe and secure. This is a union responsibility not a taxpayer problem.
 
Razorblade said:
Not exactly true. it was a "consent decree". Consent meaning an agreement made by the fund trustees and union officials
to avoid federal prosecution. An agreement that limited the ability of fund trustees and IBT officials from stealing our retirement money. No longer could money be "invested" in casinos and shadow companies that took the cash and then went bankrupt. The result was that money could only be invested in low risk, low reward vehicles like bonds. Had the unions actually looked out for the member's best interest, the government would not have intervened, the money could have been put into Index Funds that have averaged 8% returns since the great depression and our retirement would be safe and secure. This is a union responsibility not a taxpayer problem.
Click to expand...
I guess the interesting part of your post is "consent decree"... an agreement made between the government, fund trustees, and union officials. I feel as though you glossed over it a bit. So the government didn't prosecute criminals and you are ok with that? How was defrauding union members helpful to the fund? It sounds like because of government intervention the trustees weren't allowed to put money into index funds. How about you holding many high level jobs in the union...what did you do to lobby the government to allow the trustees to be more aggressive in investing? To me since the government tied the unions hands they have some responsibility here.
 
Razorblade said:
Not exactly true. it was a "consent decree". Consent meaning an agreement made by the fund trustees and union officials
to avoid federal prosecution. An agreement that limited the ability of fund trustees and IBT officials from stealing our retirement money. No longer could money be "invested" in casinos and shadow companies that took the cash and then went bankrupt. The result was that money could only be invested in low risk, low reward vehicles like bonds. Had the unions actually looked out for the member's best interest, the government would not have intervened, the money could have been put into Index Funds that have averaged 8% returns since the great depression and our retirement would be safe and secure. This is a union responsibility not a taxpayer problem.
Click to expand...
You are saying the government threatened CSPF and IBT officials whith arrest and prison terms if said officials refused to put Teamster capital in low reward vehicles like bonds?

Is that the role of government in America?
 
Homesick said:
You are saying the government threatened CSPF and IBT officials whith arrest and prison terms if said officials refused to put Teamster capital in low reward vehicles like bonds?

Is that the role of government in America?
Click to expand...
your reading comprehension is lacking
 
ABF381 said:
I guess the interesting part of your post is "consent decree"... an agreement made between the government, fund trustees, and union officials. I feel as though you glossed over it a bit. So the government didn't prosecute criminals and you are ok with that? How was defrauding union members helpful to the fund? It sounds like because of government intervention the trustees weren't allowed to put money into index funds. How about you holding many high level jobs in the union...what did you do to lobby the government to allow the trustees to be more aggressive in investing? To me since the government tied the unions hands they have some responsibility here.
Click to expand...
Defrauding union members was done by union officials and fund trustees. That is what prompted the justice department to get involved and Congress to pass the ERISA act in 1974. Why does the taxpayer have responsibility to the pension funds but the union does not? By law, the boards of pension funds are an equal number of employer representatives and union representatives. Butch-Lewis imposes responsibilities on employers but none on the Teamsters Unions.
Did the government rules go to far? Probably, but the rules imposed on pension funds are no different than those for any non profit. People who manage other peoples money are fiduciaries. I am treasurer of my condo association. It's frustrating that our reserves can't be invested in safe mutual funds. Ohio law won't even let us put money in municipal bond funds. We can only put money in FDIC insured Money Markets and CDs. The rules are there to prevent reckless speculation that risks principle.
 
Razorblade said:
Defrauding union members was done by union officials and fund trustees. That is what prompted the justice department to get involved and Congress to pass the ERISA act in 1974. Why does the taxpayer have responsibility to the pension funds but the union does not? By law, the boards of pension funds are an equal number of employer representatives and union representatives. Butch-Lewis imposes responsibilities on employers but none on the Teamsters Unions.
Did the government rules go to far? Probably, but the rules imposed on pension funds are no different than those for any non profit. People who manage other peoples money are fiduciaries. I am treasurer of my condo association. It's frustrating that our reserves can't be invested in safe mutual funds. Ohio law won't even let us put money in municipal bond funds. We can only put money in FDIC insured Money Markets and CDs. The rules are there to prevent reckless speculation that risks principle.
Click to expand...
Maybe the condo association knew you were a high teamster official and they want to keep their money safe.:6788:
 
Razorblade said:
Defrauding union members was done by union officials and fund trustees.
Click to expand...
Yup and how did the government handle it? By making a deal that wasn't helpful and that is my point that you didn't answer...you said they made a deal to stay out of prison. How was that acceptable that the government made a deal? The government is complicit by not doing more and tying the unions hands...
 
The reason funds were limited (as I Understand it) was because our Accountants were assuming inaccurate growth, while the Fund was Losing $$$$. I believe all Critical and Declining Funds are limited. Not just us.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top